From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Thu Dec 29 18:04:16 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75E30C967C1 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:04:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dino_vliet@yahoo.com) Received: from nm40-vm0.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm40-vm0.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.229.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4560B12CA for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:04:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dino_vliet@yahoo.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1483034480; bh=DiqCtuu0WViVuqhGJB7hFE/diN7vExL1w+yVggQ7Tw0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=qWwlyNrOGfCp8/HRyskDYxjYChA0nMTW7eL8iXgkBnMG3DxASALqHTgpB3W88OP6PHNwbqAwF8htrG00tehuReVuk9LacJH9pV5mNf1V9x/LEDBHdAt6DTKOUzcCyyPAX2+G9xZTzZH8zkSBWC2jrZgjwaXwfWQ0P+Ym8n2GoFMAf4mpP2xQnM6M/pO7VeXKOib3HBmg+wlhy/QMDc+i2/awap9w3Xm2fNGFhX0HS+wveW0nQWKg0oTvMNkr3198erYnjIJcKh3YW61sQUhtDXz67/F0VMjrYMnVlCn6XPT5SEUQqgARp4hlPySByvlnWFK0hfCYR5lzUT0LPp/ZHQ== Received: from [127.0.0.1] by nm40.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Dec 2016 18:01:20 -0000 Received: from [98.138.101.131] by nm40.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Dec 2016 17:58:32 -0000 Received: from [66.196.81.172] by tm19.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Dec 2016 17:57:41 -0000 Received: from [98.139.215.252] by tm18.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Dec 2016 17:57:41 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1065.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Dec 2016 17:57:41 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-4 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 309642.75952.bm@omp1065.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-YMail-OSG: is4s2TYVM1nQbF2yb63r04AZ3WaVVTze10.ofOpxg1Y1tBmhKHCEJcN4t2S.auA YRPovQAma1ljo54A0wFtOkeEypUmjLpe8WbdONTHC2YAPdH80tXDRm4yTWYwn.tHEcrgbNFHkdIc LeCKp7IldtxAJDCFLr4Cf_dBGZk1xKBa3rVK7JXNfVf8PrMa2YMPccYNj.B.DQKkCkGn4zmBs4Yu ekZ7Vfnp0fefXdKMaaX667upt7Rp7eqQhJlAdIa7_P8KnyRnxJbjQKOVC1WoshN.5CN1dLwh0stl 2F_BCE45afYj0AW1kNt.EgMC.XuIV7WeoxIaB.HGNJiiHzFUkjs_4krBHBTlzt4v52Z7xG_YpGpK CRTsqC_AroWYoU3lPJFggMWIfbCmBoaeb9px8J8IsubeFk_Q_rhQzTIiXQXK4z2CNysMkubcyn3L ga1RA3sWcp.qUD2E1HMtRrGadPmWZ1WHebarfl2hGGQc58_wAkfy81HMYeCNo_nQvPs0A0hgvoqy kNDSkAs1sjZnuAFQTSdgkniKrhSfSwmiDjKjEa1nhKInCWC2KLZ2bcTK5A6QYJl_1 Received: from jws400008.mail.bf2.yahoo.com by sendmailws108.mail.bf1.yahoo.com; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:57:40 +0000; 1483034260.949 Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:57:38 +0000 (UTC) From: Dino Vliet Reply-To: Dino Vliet To: Roger Pate , "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" Message-ID: <925569242.3715715.1483034259010@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: References: <625604110.3705032.1483032042526.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <625604110.3705032.1483032042526@mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: uname -a and freebsd-version show different output on my system MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:04:16 -0000 From: Roger Pate To: Dino Vliet ; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org=20 Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 6:43 PM Subject: Re: uname -a and freebsd-version show different output on my syst= em =20 On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Dino Vliet via freebsd-questions wrote: > Dear peeps,I'm running freebsd11 in a virtualbox production machine and s= omething really bothers me a few months already. I have the idea that freeb= sd-update is not installing the new kernel as uname-a shows: > 11.0-RELEASE-p2 FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE-p2 #0: Mon Oct 24 06:55:27 UTC 2016= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 root@amd64-builder.daemonology.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/ > However freebsd-version shows:11.0-RELEASE-p6 The kernel is not updated with every patch level, but freebsd-version does show the current version: $ uname -r 10.2-RELEASE-p24 $ freebsd-version -k 10.2-RELEASE-p24 $ freebsd-version 10.2-RELEASE-p28 Was there a kernel update you expected to see between 11.0 p2 and p6? Hmmm I see, I gues not So what you say that it's normal behaviour I'm seeing. Great to know. Thanks for your fast answer as I was worried. =20 From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Thu Dec 29 18:47:02 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0281AC9648E for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:47:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from starikarp@yandex.com) Received: from forward3j.cmail.yandex.net (forward3j.cmail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:0:1630::16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "forwards.mail.yandex.net", Issuer "Yandex CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1CB31955 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:47:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from starikarp@yandex.com) Received: from smtp1m.mail.yandex.net (smtp1m.mail.yandex.net [77.88.61.132]) by forward3j.cmail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 9003820D76; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 21:46:58 +0300 (MSK) Received: from smtp1m.mail.yandex.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1m.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id A80CC63C0A74; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 21:46:57 +0300 (MSK) Received: by smtp1m.mail.yandex.net (nwsmtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id x46tVHoyM2-ktXCju6g; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 21:46:56 +0300 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client certificate not present) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.com; s=mail; t=1483037217; bh=kLZm5LPTaYnnD6C/Q/A/gJOVkI3n8onpBGy6EBrcowA=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=qVwzl6MTxTujQrWSJV5qJ02rn60/ImJGlEtQkGXQj139KgH6Xtq7x2NvE36iXg2XZ yMWSWKZt2UVXCZHdnEe2ghE4tzfjv91ZSS/GqJJcvKW+3ua0cRwjqwe0udM/iAt/nf zVdUaLPImd0eUm8dt22f1D5kwFBVc/R+1B79n7hY= Authentication-Results: smtp1m.mail.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.com X-Yandex-Suid-Status: 1 0,1 0,1 0 Message-ID: <1483037213.96235.1.camel@yandex.com> Subject: Re: swap partition From: Stari Karp To: "Brandon J.Wandersee" Cc: John Levine , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 13:46:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: <86y3yyzl6q.fsf@WorkBox.homestead.org> References: <20161229162919.34694.qmail@ary.lan> <1483032642.96075.3.camel@yandex.com> <86y3yyzl6q.fsf@WorkBox.homestead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:47:02 -0000 On Thu, 2016-12-29 at 11:42 -0600, Brandon J.Wandersee wrote: > Stari Karp writes: > > > > > On Thu, 2016-12-29 at 16:29 +0000, John Levine wrote: > > > > > > In article <1483012420.95172.9.camel@yandex.com> you write: > > > > > > > > > > > > I like to increase swap partition ... > > > Why?Most BSD systems hardly use swap space at all.There's plenty > > > of paging but that's mostly from the files that back the memory. > > > > > > R's, > > > John > > I am using Synth and I have 8 GB memory and swap partition was made > > defaut 3.6 GB and when I built LibreOFFice and Firefox for example > > together than going swap to 100% > > (swap_pager: out of swap space > > kernel: swap_pager_getswapspace(5): failed) > > and because that I think to increase swap partition. > Building each of those ports individually or temporarily disabling > the > use of tmpfs with `synth configure` would make a whole lot more sense > than creating a new or larger swap partition that you'll never use > again. > > Yes, Synth builds will fail if you try and build several large > packages > at once and run out of temporary space in RAM. The same thing happens > with Poudriere. But once you've completely built a repository for the > first time you're unlikely to run into that problem again, since the > large ports that caused the failure in the first place will probably > not > be built simultaneously again. > I agree because I do not have so many problems anymore :). Thank you very much to everyone for the help.